Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Leon Black And The Motion To ID His Accuser (Part 1) (9/5/26)

Transcript

Leon Black And The Motion To ID His Accuser (Part 1) (9/5/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Leon Black is in a battle with his accuser over
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: her identity and her motion to remain anonymous as they
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: battle it out inside of the courtroom. Well today we're
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: going to take a look at Leon Black's reply memorandum
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: of law in further support of his motion to amend
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: the caption to disclose the plaintiff's name. In other words,
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Leon Black wants to put this plaintiff on blast. So,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: let's see what he has to say for himself. Case
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: number 123-CV-06418 Jane Doe Plaintiff vs. Leon Black the Defendant
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: Defendant Leon Black's reply memorandum of law in further support
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: of his motion to amend the caption to disclose the
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's name. Preliminary Statement As defendant showed in his opening brief,
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: the enumerated sealed plaintiff factors overwhelmingly weigh against permitting plaintiff
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: to continue to proceed anonymously. Most notably, defendant will be
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: significantly prejudiced if plaintiff is permitted to remain anonymous now
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: that discovery has commenced, and plaintiff fails to articulate any
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: countervailing harm that would warrant her continued anonymity. Moreover, plaintiff's
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: own actions indicate that she is more than willing to
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: be publicly identified in connection with with her allegations, and
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: indeed she employed various means to amplify her public statements
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: and attract significant attention without any apparent concern for keeping
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: her identity confidential. In her opposition brief, plaintiff fails entirely
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: to show otherwise. She contends that the sealed plaintiff factors
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: are non-exhaustive, and should not be applied as a mechanical test,
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: but nowhere identifies any additional factors the court should consider,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: or why it should ignore the factors identified by the
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: Second Circuit and applied in countless cases in this district,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: and by this very court. She baselessly cites retaliation as
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: a reason to maintain her anonymity, but hides the fact
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: that the defendant already knows plaintiff's identity and fails to
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: identify any retaliation that he has taken, or any non-speculative
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: risk of retaliation if the public were to learn her name.
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: She fails to even identify any particularized, non-speculative harm that
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: she will suffer if she were to proceed using her
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: true name, let alone to substantiate or corroborate any such harm.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: She unsuccessfully attempts to minimize the prejudice to defendants' ability
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: to conduct discovery and disprove her false allegations, and she
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: fails to acknowledge any and honestly confront her long and
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: well-documented history of making public statements about her supposed trafficking
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: by Jeffrey Epstein, a subject to which plaintiff devotes a
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: substantial portion of her complaint. In short, plaintiff asks the
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: court to bless her efforts to hurl heinous, reputation-destroying, fabricated
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: allegations against defendant and innocent third parties from behind a
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: protective cloak of anonymity, while frustrating defendant's right and ability
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: to defend himself. Plaintiff simply has not carried her burden
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: of showing any privacy interest that outweighs the clear prejudice
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: to defendant and the strong presumption that litigants must proceed
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: under their true names. For all of these reasons, and
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: as discussed in more detail below and in defendant's opening brief,
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: the court should grant defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: proceed using her true name. The Argument As explained in
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: defendant's opening brief, anonymity is the exception and not the rule.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: and the party seeking to proceed anonymously bears the burden
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: of establishing a privacy interest that outweighs a strong presumption
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: against anonymity. The Second Circuit has identified ten factors that
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: should guide this analysis. See Seal Plaintiff v. Seal Defendant 537,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: which countless courts in this district have applied in similar cases.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: Nine of the ten factors weigh against anonymity, and plaintiff
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: has not shown otherwise. The plaintiff mischaracterizes the governing law.
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff begins her opposition by asserting that defendant's entire argument
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: is invalid because he supposedly treats the non-exhaustive list in
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: seal plaintiff as if it is mechanical test. She makes
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: much of the Second Circuit statements that courts should take
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: into account other factors relevant to the particular case under consideration,
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: but never identifies any other factors the court should consider here.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: At the same time, she declares that the court need
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: not consider certain of the enumerated seal plaintiff factors because
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: they are non-relevant. In doing so, plaintiff wrongly conflates the
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: question of how to weigh the factors with whether to
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: consider the factors at all. Moreover, plaintiff never explains why
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: the factors she seeks to exclude are not relevant, other
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: than that they all weigh against anonymity here, effectively conceding
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: the points. Ultimately, plaintiff concedes, as she must, that the
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: 10 CO plaintiff factors are the established guidelines in this
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: circuit for assessing a party's request for anonymity, and offers
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: no reason why this court should depart from those guidelines.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: Defendant will be prejudiced in discovery if plaintiff's anonymity continues.
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff places great weight on the timing of defendant's motion,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: implying but stopping short, of seriously contending that defendant was
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: required to make his motion as soon as he became
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: aware of evidence inconsistent with his previous position on plaintiff's
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: request for anonymity. Of course, the governing law imposes no
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: such requirement, and indeed plaintiff herself acknowledges that the right
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: to proceed anonymously can be challenged at any time in
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: the litigation. She further contends that defendant faces no greater
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: prejudice now than he did a year ago and only
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: filed the instant motion at this stage to retaliate against plaintiff,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: as there is no reason for a defendant to be
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: raising this motion at this time. But of course, there
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: is the well-established good reason, as this court has recognized
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: the prejudice to a defendant, in fact, at its greatest now,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: that this case is proceeding to discovery. See Doe v. Combs, No.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: 23 Civ. Ordering that plaintiff represented by Wigdor could not
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: proceed anonymously, but staying the effect of the order until
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: the case proceeded to discovery because of prejudice to defendants,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: and is at its greatest if this matter were to
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: proceed to discovery. Contrary to plaintiff's assertions, the timing of
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: defendant's motion is not indicative of malicious intent, but rather
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: of the particular and heightened need for disclosure of plaintiff's
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: identity at the current stage of litigation. Defendant became aware
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: of plaintiff's prior public statements as early as December of 2023,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: and indeed defendant discussed these statements at length in his
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: motion seeking a stay of discovery. However, defendant did not
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: object to plaintiff's anonymous status at the time because he
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: believed that there was a strong possibility that his motion
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: to dismiss would be granted, rendering the issue moot. See Combs.
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: 2024 WL 863-705-6 If the court were to dismiss this action,
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: it would do so for a purely legal reason where
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's identity is irrelevant to that decision. Furthermore, because discovery
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: did not proceed while defendant's motion to dismiss and motion
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: to stay discovery were pending, the prejudice to defendant flowing
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: from plaintiff's anonymous status was lessened. Plaintiff wrongly contends that
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: it is only now that discovery must proceed that defendant
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: believes this evidence justifies challenging plaintiff's anonymity in this lawsuit.
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: To the contrary, defendant has long known that plaintiff is
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: not entitled to proceed anonymously, not least because of her
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: prior public statements about the allegations in her complaint. But
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: commencement of discovery brought the issue to a head and
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: made immediate defendant's concerns that he would be prejudiced in
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: discovery by the asymmetry in fact-gathering resulting from plaintiff's anonymity.
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: That prejudice is hardly hypothetical. Defendant cannot conduct effective third-party
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: discovery without running afoul of the court's order, allowing plaintiff
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: to proceed anonymously. For example, plaintiff alleges that she missed
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: countless Fridays and Mondays from her junior year of high school,
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: almost causing her to fail. In order to properly test
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: these allegations, which plaintiff's family members have denied, defendant must
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: require attendance and academic records from the school's plaintiff attended.
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: which necessarily requires disclosing plaintiff's name so that the school
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: can search for and locate those records. Similarly, defendant cannot
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: effectively obtain information from individuals who knew plaintiff during the
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: time period in which he alleges to have been trafficked
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: or medical records or information concerning the damages plaintiff seeks
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: in this lawsuit without identifying plaintiff. Defendant simply would be
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: unable to defend himself against these life-ruining accusations if plaintiff
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: is permitted to remain anonymous. See Doe v. Combs, No. 24,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Civ 8054-2024, WL 463-5309 at 5, SDNY, Oct. 30, 2024.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: If damaging information about one side is aired, through the litigation,
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: defendants cannot mitigate the damage to their reputations. This concrete
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: and undeniable prejudice to defendants weighs strongly against Plaintiff's continued anonymity.
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: And you can already see how this Combs case is
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: bleeding into Leon Black's case. And that's how it works
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: with these kinds of issues in the court. There's going
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: to be a lot of reference one way or the other.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: And that's because the courts love precedent. Part 3. Plaintiff
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: alleges nothing more than speculative and generalized harm to herself
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: or third parties if she discloses her real name. In
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: her opposition, Plaintiff asserts that she must remain anonymous and
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: in order to prevent further harm to herself and innocent
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: third parties, namely members of her family. Redacted, but plaintiff
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: fails to even identify, let alone substantially, any specific or
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: particularized mental or physical harm she will suffer if she
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: is identified publicly. Instead, plaintiff offers only speculative generalized claims
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: of harm, mischaracterizes both defendants' arguments and the governing law,
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: and baselessly misconstrues defendants' ordinary and absolutely necessary, given the allegations,
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: investigative efforts, as evidence that he will use her identity
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: to harass or retaliate against her or her family. Again,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: these claims are entirely unfounded. especially considering defendant already knows
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's identity and has not inflicted any such harm to date.
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff first contends that defendant has used his wealth and
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: influence to harass her and her family and asserts that
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: disclosing her identity will only enable him to amplify those efforts. Specifically,
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: she complains that defendant has employed private investigators to contact
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: members of her biological family and her former classmates. But
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: what she describes as prior threats are nothing more than
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: ordinary investigative tactics intended to gather facts about plaintiff's credibility
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: and the validity of her claims. Defendants trained and certified
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: investigator contacted these individuals not to intimidate them, but to
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: gather information and was able to do so because the
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: individuals willingly cooperated and answered his questions, confirming on the record.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: and in consensually recorded interviews that they were speaking with
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: the investigator voluntarily and with no coercion or inducement. Indeed,
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: plaintiff accuses defendant of going so far as to imply
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: that she has somehow made up the fact that she
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: has autism, but that is based in part on defendant's
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: accurate recitation of what defendant's investigator was told by plaintiff's
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: biological family. All right, we're going to wrap up right here,
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: and then the next episode we're going to pick up
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: with more fundamentally. All of the information that goes with
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.