mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019317.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "292",
    "date": "May 18, 2020",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cv-10455-LGS Document 292 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 3\nDavid Boies\nTelephone: (914) 749-8200\nEmail: dboies@bsfllp.com\nMay 18, 2020\nVIA ECF\nThe Honorable Debra C. Freeman\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan\nUnited States Courthouse\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\nRe: Annie Farmer v. Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, & Ghislaine Maxwell, 19-10475-LGS-DCF\nDear Judge Freeman:\nPursuant to Individual Rule I.D, Plaintiff Annie Farmer hereby responds to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's request for a pre-motion conference in connection with her anticipated motion to stay discovery in this matter. The Court should deny Maxwell's motion for a pre-motion conference and deny her anticipated motion in its entirety because, as explained below, each of Maxwell's reasons for staying discovery is meritless and the motion is simply another attempt to unjustifiably delay this litigation.\nFirst, a pending criminal investigation of Maxwell does not justify a stay of discovery. \"[A] stay of a civil case to permit conclusion of a related criminal prosecution has been characterized as an extraordinary remedy.\" Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this Circuit, courts balance the following six factors when considering whether to stay a civil case pending related criminal proceedings:\n1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; 2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; 5) the interests of the courts; and 6) the public interest.\nId. at 99. And according to the very case Maxwell cites in support of staying this action pending a criminal investigation: \"The weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment, but will deny a stay of the civil proceeding where no indictment has issued.\" In re Par Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., 133 F.R.D. 12, 13-14 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). The Court should deny Maxwell's motion for a stay without prejudice to her ability to renew her application if she is arrested. Until that happens, however, there are no grounds for a stay.\nBOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP\n333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504 | (t) 914 749 8200 | (f) 914 749 8300 | www.bsflp.com\nDOJ-OGR-00019317",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cv-10455-LGS Document 292 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "David Boies\nTelephone: (914) 749-8200\nEmail: dboies@bsfllp.com",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "May 18, 2020",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VIA ECF\nThe Honorable Debra C. Freeman\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan\nUnited States Courthouse\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: Annie Farmer v. Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, & Ghislaine Maxwell, 19-10475-LGS-DCF",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dear Judge Freeman:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Pursuant to Individual Rule I.D, Plaintiff Annie Farmer hereby responds to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's request for a pre-motion conference in connection with her anticipated motion to stay discovery in this matter. The Court should deny Maxwell's motion for a pre-motion conference and deny her anticipated motion in its entirety because, as explained below, each of Maxwell's reasons for staying discovery is meritless and the motion is simply another attempt to unjustifiably delay this litigation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, a pending criminal investigation of Maxwell does not justify a stay of discovery. \"[A] stay of a civil case to permit conclusion of a related criminal prosecution has been characterized as an extraordinary remedy.\" Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this Circuit, courts balance the following six factors when considering whether to stay a civil case pending related criminal proceedings:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; 2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; 5) the interests of the courts; and 6) the public interest.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 99. And according to the very case Maxwell cites in support of staying this action pending a criminal investigation: \"The weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment, but will deny a stay of the civil proceeding where no indictment has issued.\" In re Par Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., 133 F.R.D. 12, 13-14 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). The Court should deny Maxwell's motion for a stay without prejudice to her ability to renew her application if she is arrested. Until that happens, however, there are no grounds for a stay.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP\n333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504 | (t) 914 749 8200 | (f) 914 749 8300 | www.bsflp.com",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019317",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Debra C. Freeman",
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Darren K. Indyke",
      "Richard D. Kahn",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "David Boies"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP",
      "United States Courthouse"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Armonk"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "May 18, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cv-10455-LGS",
      "292",
      "19-10475-LGS-DCF",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019317"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal legal letter, well-formatted and without any visible damage or redactions."
}