Epstein Project

EFTA00028472.pdf

Type
pdf
Source set
data-set-8

Original source

Extracted text

Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF Document 21 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 2 
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 
VIA ECF 
The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla 
United States District Court 
Southern District of New York 
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 
40 Foley Square 
New York, NY 10007 
350 FIFTH AVENUE I SUITE 7110 
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 
TEL 
I FAX 
WWW.KAPLANHECKER,COM 
November 6, 2019 
Re: Doe v. lndyke et al., No. 19-cv-08673 (S.D.N.Y.) (KPF) 
Dear Judge Failla: 
We represent Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. We write in response to Defendants' 
two letters filed yesterday regarding: (1) related case status (ECF 19); and (2) document 
preservation (ECF 20). 
Since we do not see any conceivable basis under Rule 13 of the Rules for the Division of 
Business Among District Judges in the Southern District to oppose designating these cases with 
overlapping defendants, legal issues, and factual allegations as related, we oppose Defendants' 
request for 30 days to respond. See Local Rule for the Division of Business Among District Judges 
in the Southern District 13(a); see also Poindexter v. Cash Money Records, No. 13-cv-5882, 2014 
WL 1383781, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2014); Pace v. Quintanilla, No. 13-cv-91, 2013 WL 
5405563, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013). Our client was understandably shocked by the suicide 
of Jeffrey Epstein in federal custody, and is eager to obtain a modicum of justice as soon as 
possible. All we have seen from Defendants, however, are efforts at delay. We very much want 
to push this case forward to trial as soon as possible, and it is essential to have a judge assigned 
who will preside over the entire progress of the case in order to do so. I 
Notably, contrary to the suggestion in Defendants' letter, Plaintiff is not seeking consolidation at this time. 
We further note that the cases that Plaintiff has proposed as related have now all been reassigned to the same 
magistrate judge, including: VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al., No. 19-cv-…

Open in the interactive archive →