Epstein Secrets

OF NEW YORK x 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff, v. 17 Civ. 616 (JGK) JEFFERY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, and Defendants. Before: x New York, N.Y. August 7, 2018 2:30 p.m. HON. JOHN G. KOELTL District Judge APPEARANCES BOIES SCHILLER &

ERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00285631 I877DOEC APPEARANCES (Continued) HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell BY: LAURA MENNINGER 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALSO PRESENT: ALEXANDER LORENZO SOUTHERN DIS

mises made by the defendants, plaintiff returned to New York City, in the Southern District of New York, and was promptly ordered by the defendant Maxwell to have sex with defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell, and Epstein each fraudulently promised plaintiff again that her sexual compliance would be

that analysis has been applied to conclude that the ten year statute of limitations applies. We cited a case out of the District of Minnesota, the Abarca case, that takes a different view, and the thinking in the Abarca case -- which we think is the correct thinking -- THE COURT: So far the thinking

.D.N.Y. 2012) 11, 12 In re EPDM Antitrust Litt., 255 F.R.D. 308 (D. Conn. 2009) 12 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433, 2017 WL 1787934 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2017) 10, 11 10 Intl Equity Investments, Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd, No. 2010 W

THERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) MEMORANDUM OF L

THERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) MEMORAN

Court Should Modify the Protective Order I I CONCLUSION 15 CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER SEAL EFTA00805390 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abarca v. Little, 54 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (D. Minn. 2014) 4 Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 130 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) 11, 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AND Defendants. CASE NO. 17 Civ 616 (JGK) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS EFTA00307096 ARGUMENT 1 A. Allegatio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AND Defendants. CASE NO. 17 Civ 616 (JGK) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS EFTA00307096 ARGUMENT 1 A. Allegations Regard

menced until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the FAC occurred. Plaintiff's claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation

st, the allegations of coercion are unspecific and wholly conclusory, as exemplified by the allegations in paragraph 45 that "Defendants Epstein and Maxwell intimidated, threatened, humiliated and verbally abused Plaintiff in order to coerce her into sexual compliance. These Defendants threatened Plaint

d until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred. Plaintiffs claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation

ere she held citizenship and where her parents resided, Epstein and Doc. # DC-1008444ki v.8 EFTA00298459 Brad Edwards, Esq. May , 2017 Page 6 Maxwell told her that "she would not be permitted to return to the United States to receive her promised education unless she lost weight." Plaintiff does n

until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred. Plaintiff's claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation