Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / The USVI And Their Motion To Intervene In The Epstein Survivors Lawsuit Against The Estate (9/11/26)

Transcript

The USVI And Their Motion To Intervene In The Epstein Survivors Lawsuit Against The Estate (9/11/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're going to continue taking a look
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: at the court documents in the lawsuit filed by the
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: USVI against J.P. Morgan. And this time, we're going to
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: be taking a look at the Memorandum of Law in
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: support of proposed intervener's motion to intervene and disclose certain
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: filings to the litigants and counsel in the related action
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: of Doe v. the USVI. Case number 22-2. dash CV
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: dash 10904, the preliminary statement. Proposed intervenors seek an order
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: granting them access to the unredacted filings in this action
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: to the parties and their counsel in accordance with the
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: same protective order entered into this action. A copy of
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: the proposed protective order is submitted as Exhibit A. Proposed
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: intervenors or plaintiffs proceeding anonymously in the action Doe v.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: USVI 23 CV dash 10031 SDNY, the Doe Action. By
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: the class action complaint in the Doe Action, proposed interveners
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: seek damages from the defendants for their conspiracy with Jeffrey
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: Epstein and others and facilitation of the sex trafficking venture
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: that was the subjection of this action. Proposed interveners were
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: victims of that enterprise. Of note, the USVI is a
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: defendant in the Doe Action and was the plaintiff in
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: this action, which settled with J.P. Morgan for $ 75 million.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: USVI was the plaintiff's as parens patriae. The underlying facts.
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: The protective order in this action permitted the parties to
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: deem confidential any information of a personal or intimate nature
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: regarding any individual. The same protective order was entered in
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: two other actions, Doe v. Deutsche Bank, 22 CV 10018 JSR,
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Document 41, and Doe 1 v. JPMorgan Chase, Number 22-CV10019JSR
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: Document 35 The protective order's broad and vague language resulted
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: in the party shielding the vast majority of discovery from
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: public disclosure. Proposed interveners are now hamstrung by their ability
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: to prosecute their claims against the defendants in the Doe action,
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: including the USVI. Indeed, those defendants are capitalizing on the
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: lack of available evidence in the public domain, as plaintiffs
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: have been served with proposed interveners have been served with
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: four motions to dismiss in the Doe action. There, the
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: USVI and several other defendants have insisted upon dismissal without
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: the benefit of even jurisdictional discovery. Doe v. USVI 23-CV-10301
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: Documents 31, 68, 72, and 78. The USVI, which benefited
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: from the protective order in this action, is using it
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: as both a sword and a shield. When it served
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: the USVI's interest to consent to confidentiality, it did so
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: in order to prosecute claims. Even a cursory review of
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: the redactions on the docket reveals that the redactions pertain
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: to the privacy of many of the defendants in this action.
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: the government officials who benefited from the sex trafficking scheme.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: It would also rub salt in the wounds of the
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: real victims of sex trafficking schemes, proposed interveners to bar
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: them from the evidence needed to prosecute their claims against
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: the other co-conspirators in the scheme. The right to anonymity
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: of the Doe plaintiffs in the consolidated actions before this
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: court would not be impacted by the grant of this relief.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: For example, one of the plaintiffs in that case, Doe 1,
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: opposed the New York Times' recent application to unseal the
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: entirety of the file for public view. But that position
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: is not incompatible with the proposed intervener's position in this case,
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: to maintain the confidentiality of the documents by limiting disclosure
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: to the parties and their counsel in Doe v. USVI.
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: In accordance with this court's order, the parties have conferred
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: concerning plaintiffs' requests. Plaintiff no longer seeks any disclosure from J.P.
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: Morgan or Jess Daly. However, as explained below, plaintiffs were
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: unable to reach an agreement with respect to the USVI's discovery.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: The argument. Proposed interveners are entitled to access the confidential
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: filings pursuant to the protective order. A. Proposed interveners may intervene.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: Under Rule 24b-2. On timely motion, the court may permit
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: anyone to intervene who is given a conditional right to
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: intervene by a federal statute or who has a claim
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: or defense that shares with the main action a common
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: question of law or fact. FedRciv.p24b2 Permissive intervention is permitted where,
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: as here, a member of the public seeks intervention to
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: modify a protective order and inspect other court documents. AT
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: & T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F. 3D 560-562 Second Circuit, 2005.
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: Permissive intervention is the proper method for a non-party to
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: seek modification of a protective order. See also EEOC v.
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: National Children's Center Inc. 146 F. 3D 1042-1045 D.C. Circuit, 1998.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: Every circuit court that has considered the question has come
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: to the conclusion that non-parties may permissively intervene for the
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: purpose of challenging confidentiality orders. Here, proposed interveners are seeking
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: access to the USVI's witness deposition transcripts and sealed USVI
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: emails and documents in order to prosecute their claims against
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: defendants in their action, subject to the same protective order
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: that remains in effect in this case. To balance against
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: the privacy interests of the parties in this action, proposed
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: interveners ask that disclosure be limited to litigants and their
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: counsel in the Doe action only. The motion is timely.
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: When a member of the public moves to intervene to
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: unseal judicial records, the motion to intervene is timely as
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: long as the documents remain under seal because sealing places
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the public's interest in an open access in controversy. NML
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: Capital Limited v. Republic of Argentina said, 2. 14 CV
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: 492 RFB VCF 2014 U.S. District Lexus 173 780 at 11.
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: Here the action was resolved with the settlement so there
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: was no ongoing or unknown concerns that may bar intervention
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: in disclosure. Given this tailored request, there is no proper
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: basis to deny proposed intervener access. B. The Doe plaintiffs
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: here have the same interests as the Doe plaintiffs in
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: the action before this court and should not be prevented
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: from using discovery in this case to prosecute their claims
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: in their recent action. Recently, the New York Times moved
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: for unsealing of the entire action before this court. In opposition,
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: Doe 1 argued that victims of sexual crimes are entitled
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: to anonymity. As the victim of rampant horrific sexual abuse
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: that has changed the course of her life, Jane Doe
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: 1 is entitled to the protection of her identity despite
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: the presumption of public access. The privacy interests the court
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: must consider here, the identity of a sexual assault victim,
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: is an important and recognized basis to limit public access
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: to the documents in question. Although a presumption in favor
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: of public access exists, the basis for sealing the records
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: at issue, protecting the identity of the sexual assault victim,
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: provides a compelling case. Indeed, it is common for courts
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: in this district to grant requests for sealing orders to
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: protect the sexual assault victim's identity, Roberts v. Dershowitz, No. 15, Civ.,
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: 7433 LAP 2020 WL 543 9623 at 2 SDNY September 9th, 2020.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Finding that the gravity of the privacy interests of Epstein's
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: victims weighed heavily against public disclosure. Scott v. Graham No.
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: 16 CV 2372 KP FJLC 2016 WL 680 4999 at
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: 1 SDNY. Here, there is a compelling reason to limit
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: the general public's access to the documents filed in this case.
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: Safeguarding the identity of a rape victim, Kavanaugh v. Zwilling, 997-FSUPP-2D-241-256-SDNY-2014,
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: sealing records of decisions as the decisions contain sensitive and
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: personal information about the sexual abuse of a minor. 22
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: CV 10904 JSR Document 353. Proposed intervenors agree that they
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: are entitled to such anonymity. However, proposed intervenors' motion will
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: not disturb the privacy of other victims because they seek
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: to maintain the confidentiality of the discovery and filings in
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: this case in order to facilitate the prosecution against others
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: who facilitated Epstein's crimes. Proposed interveners are seeking essentially a
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: de facto consolidation of their case with this case. As
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: this court will recall, the court consolidated the within action
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: with other actions brought by women who are victims. Just
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: as proposed interveners were of the sex trafficking venture, this
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: court therefore ordered, barring any objection from plaintiff government of
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: the United States Virgin Islands, which must be made by
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: joint telephone call to chambers no later than 5 p.m.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: on January 4th, 2023, This case is hereby consolidated for
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: all pretrial purposes with Doe v. D.B. CV 10018 and
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: Doe v. J.P. Morgan 22 CV-10019 Exhibit B 22 CV
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: 10904 JSR Document 5 C. Plaintiffs do not seek to
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: disturb the protective order as the USVI was a party
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: to the within action and many defendants in the proposed
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: intervenors case are non-party witnesses in the within matter. The
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: USVI is in possession of all the filings in this
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: case and so can hardly oppose an order which places
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: proposed intervenors on the same footing as them. Further, the
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: remaining defendants in the proposed intervenors case were non-party witnesses
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: in this action. They have received the benefit of confidentiality
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: and would continue to do so in this case. Plaintiffs
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: have a unique and urgent need to review these documents.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: They are entitled to access to the documents requested from
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: counsel for the USVI. Plaintiffs have provided a list of
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: documents and transcripts they seek from the USVI. However, counsel
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: for the USVI refuses and continues to object to production.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: Counsel for the USVI refuses. agreed to provide certain limited items,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: such as the Executed Extension Economic Development Certificate, Example 88,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: Number VI-JPM-0000-18027, Amended Benefit Certificate for Financial Trust Company, and
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: the Request to Terminate Economic Development Benefits of Southern Trust Company,
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: dated December 11, 2019. However, Counsel for the USVI has
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: refused to provide complete deposition transcripts of any USVI witnesses,
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: relying upon the court's order, which directed that plaintiffs only
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: identify documents that were filed on the docket. Plaintiffs submit
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: that the court's order limiting plaintiffs' disclosure was entered based
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: on a misapprehension of the USVI's disclosures on the docket.
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: That is, plaintiff concluded from reviewing the docket that the
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: USVI only filed excerpts of the transcripts and had redacted
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: the balance of them. During the meet and confer, USVI's
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: counsel represented that only transcript excerpts had ever been filed
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: and that, in accordance with this court's order, the plaintiffs
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: were not entitled to the balance of the transcripts because
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: they were never filed on the docket. Plaintiffs asked that
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: this court revise the limitation of its order as based
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: on the misapprehension of the USVI's filings and direct disclosure
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: of the deposition transcripts of the following witnesses. Vincent Frazier,
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: Stacey Plaskett, Cecile DeJong, Kenneth Mapp, John DeJong, Albert Bryan,
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: Denise George, Margarita Benjamin, Sandra Bess, and Anais Bork, the
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: USVI Territorial Sex Offender Registry Program Manager. Similarly, counsel for
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: the USVI has refused to provide unredacted versions of the
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: following documents. Modification application for economic development, USVI Economic Development
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: Commission hearing transcript, internal memo of the USVI Economic Development Commission,
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: email chain from the files of the VI Department of Justice,
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: and the earlier email on the same chain. USVI argues
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: that it's exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Virgin Island
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: Code 3, Section 881, G8. However, this information is not
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: included in this section. Virgin Island Code 3, Section 881, G8,
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: numerates 14 types of documents that must remain confidential and
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: not a single item applies herein. The USVI cannot cite
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: any prejudice from disclosing to the very individuals that gave
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: the USVI standing to sue J.P. Morgan in this action
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: pursuant to the same protective order. There is none. This
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: is merely a stalling tactic to prevent plaintiffs from receiving
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: this disclosure before the motions to dismiss are fully submitted.
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: It shocks the conscience that the USVI would take such
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: a position as a defendant when the same USVI represented
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: victims in the USVI v. JPMorgan lawsuit, which settled for
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: $ 75 million. Further, as part of that settlement, according to
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: the New York Times article by Matthew Goldstein, Dated September 26, 2023,
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: the Virgin Islands said that $ 10 million of the total
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: was being aimed at providing mental health support for Epstein victims.
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: Now the same USVI is refusing to provide discovery and
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: deposition transcripts to which victims are entitled? Clearly, the USVI's
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: intentions are not driven by a desire to help the victims,
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: but to collect money in furtherance of the sex trafficking
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: operation for its own purposes, not for the benefit of
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: the victims. Disclosure in this case would come at no
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: cost to the USVI as plaintiffs would abide by the
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: same protective order. Knowing that this disclosure would harm the
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: USVI and the individuals named herein as defendants, the USVI
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: is delaying disclosure in hopes of prevailing on the motion
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: to dismiss in that action. Conclusion. The privacy interests implicated
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: by the protective order are not harmed or threatened by
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: this application. This action arises out of the same event
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: and and is based on the actions of the same
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: parties and non-parties, with the exception of the witnesses from
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: the banking industry, who may be non-parties in this action. Notwithstanding,
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: if the protective order is continued but expanded to apply
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: to the parties in the Doe vs. USVI action, the
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: victims of the horrible crimes will be permitted to seek
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: redress using hard-won discovery from the earlier actions. This was
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: dated April 29th of 2024, and it was signed by
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: Jordan Meerson. All of the information that goes with this
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.