Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Leon Black And The Motion To ID His Accuser (Part 2) (9/5/26)

Transcript

Leon Black And The Motion To ID His Accuser (Part 2) (9/5/26) · 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 picking up where we left off
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: with Leon Black and his attempt to pierce the shield
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: of his accuser's anonymity. More fundamentally, Plaintiff offers nothing in
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: support of her bare assertion that disclosure of her identity
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: would allow defendant to instigate third parties to cause Plaintiff
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: and her family harm. Opposition at eight. All of these
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: supposed examples of retaliation and harassment she falsely cites involve
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: defendant or his agents, all of whom already know plaintiff's identity.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff gives no explanation other than anecdotes about other individuals
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: of why she is at risk of retaliation or a
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: backlash from the general public. As for her assertion that
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: defendant has a history of retaliation and intimidation, plaintiff relies
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: primarily on a case in which defendant's malicious prosecution claim
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: which was brought against the very same lawyers who filed
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: this case, was sustained over plaintiff counsel's motion to dismiss.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: See Black v. Gonavilla. Plaintiff's concerns about the well-being of
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: her family members are shocking, given that redacted, see ECF
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: document number 92 through 2, 1 and 2, 26, 34, 37, 57,
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: and 98. No doubt in response to the fact that
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: these family members gave truthful information, to defendant that destroys
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's claims, see ECF document number 52, 8, 10, 11,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: and 13, redacted. These are not the actions of one
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: who is genuinely concerned about the shielding of her or
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: her own family member's identities in a highly publicized case.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: To assert that defendant cannot utilize the same information in
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: his own discovery efforts is not only hypocritical, but deeply prejudicial.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: If plaintiff insists on involving her family in this litigation,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: defendant must be allowed to identify her and them. Plaintiffs'
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: supposed concern about bringing non-parties into the litigation is similarly disingenuous,
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: given that plaintiff has issued subpoenas to numerous individuals and
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: institutions with no ties to the allegations in the complaint,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: many of which do not even mention either party to
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: this action. Plaintiff next contends that she is not required
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: to submit evidence to substantiate and corroborate her alleged harm.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: In doing so, plaintiff ignores decisions from this court and
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: numerous others looking for corroboration from medical professionals that detail
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: the risk to plaintiff. Combs 2024 WL 863 705 at 3. Moreover,
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: even if supporting affidavits are not required, something more than
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: mere speculation and broad conclusion plainly is. CEG Dover Skyline
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: Autos Inc. 375 F.S.U.P.P. 3D 401-406 SDNY 2019 Combs 2024
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: WL 4635-09-2-3 Plaintiff fails to clear even that bar. Instead,
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff asserts that, as an alleged rape victim, she will
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: obviously be re-traumatized and suffer untold psychological harm if her
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: identity is disclosed. but all she offers in support are
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: statistics regarding assault victims reluctant to speak publicly about their
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: experiences and examples of victims and families who have been
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: harassed by their alleged attackers. While those reports are certainly upsetting,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: they are insufficient to establish any harm or threat of harm,
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: particular to plaintiff, that justifies continued anonymity. See Doe vs.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: Intel Corporation No. 24. CIV 6117-2024 WL 455-3985 at 3
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: and 4. SDNY October 22, 2024. Combs 2024 WL 463-5309
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: at 2 and 3. Plaintiff's alleged membership in a particular
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: group is not enough. She must show a real risk
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: of harm that is more than speculative in nature. based
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: on direct evidence linking disclosure of her name to a
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: specific physical or mental injury or threat thereof. Intel Corp.
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: 2024 WL 455-3985 at 3 and 4, citation and quotation omitted.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: Par 4. Plaintiff mischaracterizes her prior public statements on this matter.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff has, on multiple occasions, falsely represented to defendant and
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: this court that she has kept her identity confidential. including
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: her counsel's prior certification that Plaintiff has not spoken publicly
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: about the incidents that underlie the causes of action in
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: her complaint. See ECF docket number 7 and 18. In fact,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: it's documented in defendant's opening brief, Plaintiff frequently posted on
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: Twitter that she survived alleged trafficking by Epstein, including, for example,
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: tweeting that she was redacted. Plaintiff also introduced herself as
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: a survivor or victim of Epstein dozens of times During
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Twitter spaces, events attended by thousands of viewers. Despite being
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: confronted with her own public statements, plaintiff doubles down on
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: her opposition in her opposition, flatly declaring that none of
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: her social media posts discussing her alleged trafficking by Epstein
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: concern the allegations made in this case. The post never
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: mentioned the incidents detailed in the complaint and plaintiff has
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: never publicly disclosed the allegations that she has made in
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: this case. opposition at 17, emphasis in original. These representations
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: are categorically and knowingly false and do not tip the
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: seven-sealed plaintiff factor whether the plaintiff's identity has thus far
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: been kept confidential to favor anonymity. 537 F. 3d at 190.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: See motion at 11 and 12. While it's true that
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: plaintiff alleged trafficking by Epstein, who is deceased, does not
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: form the basis for any causes of action in the complaint,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff intentionally places Epstein at the center of her complaint.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: The complaint contains more references to Epstein than to defendant
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: and redacted, despite the fact that Mr. Black is the
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: sole defendant in this action. Plaintiff repeatedly, and in great detail,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: alleges in her complaint that she was trafficked to and
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: by Epstein, and that such trafficking is what led to
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: her alleged assault by defendant. CECF Document No. 1, 16,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: 44 and 45, 56, 60 through 66, and 83. Plaintiff's
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: numerous public declarations that she was trafficked by Epstein undeniably
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: relate to these allegations for purposes of this motion. Here again,
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: plaintiff seeks to have her cake and eat it too.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: She filled the complaint with irrelevant Epstein references to garner
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: attention and sensationalize her claims. Yet now, She argues that
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: these same allegations are not relevant to her claims in
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: this lawsuit, but plaintiff made these irrelevant allegations and put
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: them in the complaint and cannot now protest that her
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: public statements about those allegations should not weigh against her
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: continued anonymity. As detailed in the defendant's opening brief, plaintiff
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: also discussed the specific allegations against defendant by name with
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: at least two individuals she knew only through social media.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: They should also not be used as a basis to
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: foist a host of irrelevant harassing and burdensome discovery on
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: defendant and third parties. Mr. Black has mentioned in less
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: than 17% of the requests, 71 of 419, including the subpoenas,
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: Dukas Tecum, that the plaintiff has noticed to date. Quinn
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: declaration at five. On the other hand, the subpoenas are
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: rife with references to Epstein, his cohorts and various businesses
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: and political leaders, including former president Clinton to United States senators,
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: two former cabinet officers, several owners of professional sports franchises
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: in Washington, DC and the hall of fame football coach
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: that appear to be pulled from the conspiracy theory, laced
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: recesses of the dark web and are completely irrelevant to
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: the allegations against Mr. Black. Although she shared these details
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: in direct messages rather than public posts, there is no
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: evidence that plaintiff received assurances of confidentiality from either individuals,
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: both of whom were virtual strangers to her, and in
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: fact readily shared this information with investigators. See RAP 537 F.SUPP
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: 3D at 529. Accordingly, plaintiff's public statements weigh strongly in
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: favor of disclosing her identity. Part 5 plaintiff is not
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: particularly vulnerable to the harms of disclosure defendant previously showed
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: that plaintiff is not particularly vulnerable to the possible harms
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: of disclosure Seal Plaintiff 537, F. 3D at 190. Because even
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: if the conduct alleged in the complaint occurred when plaintiff
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: was a minor, plaintiff is now an adult, motion at 16.
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: In her opposition, plaintiff acknowledges that courts in this district
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: have only treated this factor as favoring anonymity when plaintiff
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: is a minor at the time the lawsuit is brought.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: See opposition at 14, citing RAP 537, F.SUPP 3D at 530.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Combs at 2024 WL 863705 at 4. But plaintiff wrongly
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: asserts that this factor weighs in favor of anonymity in
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: this case because she alleges that she is developmentally about
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: 12 years old and currently has the emotional characteristics of
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: a 12-year-old. Put differently, plaintiff contends that her legal age
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: is irrelevant here because her alleged disabilities make her vulnerable.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: In exactly the way a child would be. and therefore
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: her disabilities place her squarely into the class of persons
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: the fourth factor aims to protect. But that simply is
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: not the law, and plaintiff does not point to even
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: a single case. adopting her reasoning. Moreover, if, as plaintiff alleges,
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: she is so developmentally and neurologically disabled that she should
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: be considered the legal equivalent of a child, then her
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: allegations raise serious questions about whether plaintiff is even competent
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: to bring this action on her own. See FedR Civ
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: P17C a minor, or an incompetent person may bring suit
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: only through a general guardian, committee, conservator, fiduciary, next friend,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: or guardium ad litem. Of course, plaintiff and or counsel
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: have never sought to go this route, which speaks volumes. Conclusion.
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: For the foregoing reasons, and as set forth in the
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: opening brief, defendant respectfully requests that the court grant this
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: motion and amend the caption to disclose plaintiff's name. This
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: document was dated November 4th, 2024, and it was signed
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: by Dania Perry. All of the information that goes with
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.