The Joint Letter Regarding Discovery Dispute In The Leon Black/Jane Doe Lawsuit (9/12/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right back into that Leon Black lawsuit that was filed against him by Jane Doe. And in this episode, we're taking a look at a letter that was sent by the lawyer for Leon Black, Daniel Perry to judge Clark. Dear judge Clark, pursue into rule 4K, your honors, individual rules and practices in civil cases. The parties respectfully submit this joint letter raising a discovery dispute concerning, defendant Leon Black's request to quash or modify a deposition and subpoena plaintiff seeks to serve on three of Mr. Black's attorneys and Mr. Black's wife. Per rule 4K defendant would request an informal conference. Plaintiff does not agree that a conference is necessary. On the evening of October 16, 2024, counsel for plaintiff gave notice that she would be serving at least 16 non-party subpoenas. The 11 documents subpoenas were all returnable on November 15 and the five depositions were noticed for dates between November 19 and November 23.

1:07Including the depositions of Ms. Black, on November 20 and three attorneys in question on November 21 through 23 and on October 22, 2024. Counsel for defendant and counsel for plaintiff and email, setting forth the basis for defendant's objections to the subpoenas. Counsel for the parties thereafter met and conferred telephonically for 30 minutes on October 25, 2024. In attendance were Peter Gwynn, Alexander Parshini, Susan Estrich and Ryan Rackower, for Mr. Black and Jeanne Christensen and Meredith Firetog for plaintiff. After defendant and plaintiff is portion of his draft letter on November 11, 2024, the parties agreed to postpone the depositions pending resolution of this dispute. The parties were unable to resolve this dispute on their own. The plaintiff's position. Apple Second Circuit Base Law exists to show the plaintiff squarely within rule 26 to conduct depositions of Ms. Black, Mr. Carp, Mr. Erlich and Mr. Lawfer.

2:14Plaintiff is entitled to depose Deborah Black. Plaintiff seeks to depose Black spouse because she has relevant information about the frequency and nature of his socialization, business dealings and overall relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Spouses regularly testify in depositions and at trial in civil matters. Adverse, Spousal testimony privilege permits an individual to refuse to testify in a criminal proceeding against her or his spouse, but in civil cases such as this one, that privilege does not apply a narrower, more limited privilege applies to Ms. Black. Chevron Corp. Verst Donzinger, number 11-cv0691. Ciosit Woodbury Road, Woodbury, New York 71-F-3D, 10-70 Second Circuit 1995. In Chevron Donzinger, the defendant's wife asserted Spousal privilege in refusing to respond to written questions and appear at a deposition, but the court required her to appear at the deposition and held that privilege must be asserted in response to particular questions.

3:17And a proper foundation for it established. Plaintiff alleges that Black's sexual assault over took place in a home owned by Epstein, and that it was very close to the Black residents. Public articles report that Epstein frequently hosted Black at his mansion, usually for breakfast or for lunch. Ms. Black can testify to her personal observations regarding how often Black went to Epstein's and for what purposes, if she knows, she can testify about whether she went with Black to Epstein's and if so, who was there, and about conversations. Ms. Black's conversations with Epstein are not privileged. Additionally, from 1998 to 2012, Ms. Black was the vice president of the Leon Black Family Foundation Incorporated, where Black was the president and treasurer and Epstein served as the director. For these 14 years, he was the only other officer alongside Ms. Black and Mr. Black. Her communications with Epstein, regarding the family office from 1998 through 2012, are not privileged.

4:18The Decorate report speaks about the various charities that Black and Epstein contributed to for one another and the family office gave to numerous charities. Black admits in the report that Epstein provided substantive advice to the family office on various topics, to the extent Ms. Black was involved in philanthropic endeavors with Black and Epstein, whether through the family office or otherwise, she can testify without invoking privilege. Finally, the report confirms that Ms. Black travel with Black to visit Epstein at his other homes outside of NYC, including Paris, New Mexico, and St. James, Ireland and USVI. These subjects and others that will be detailed in plaintiffs' response to defendant's motion to quash all that fall squarely outside the common law material privilege and are relevant to this case. plaintiff is entitled to depose Brad Carp, Andrew Erlich, and Gregory Lawford. plaintiff seeks to depose Carp, Erlich, and Lawford as fact witnesses concerning relevant information about Black's relationship with Epstein, Paul Weiss' involvement,

5:24and the knowledge of the Decorate report ended to pose Carp about his general knowledge of Black given their friendship, which spans multiple decades. To be covered under the Attorney Client Privilege, Carp, Erlich, and Lawford have to show that a communication was made in confidence between Black and themselves for the purpose of obtaining legal assistance for the client. Even if a communication contained both legal and business advice, it's not covered unless the primary purpose of the communication was to obtain legal advice. Here Carp is a fact witness whose testimony does not necessarily involve the Attorney Client Privilege. Indeed, according to a July 26, 2022 business insider profile of Carp, you know, longer represents Black. He's not Black's lawyer of record in this litigation. Therefore, any conversations Carp has had with Black about or concerning, but potentially relevant information about the action would not be privileged. This is also true for Erlich and Lawford. Additionally, Paul Weiss' attorneys were a part of the Decorate report, assisting in the collection of more than 60,000 records and documents for Decorate, and participating as witnesses in the investigation.

6:33The report notes that interviews with current and former legal counsel were conducted to obtain their recollection of events that may have been relevant to Decorate's investigation. To the extent these lawyers have information about the report, these communications are not privileged, given that the publication and filing of the report weigh of any such privilege. And as such Carp and likely Erlich and Lawford have relevant information as fact witnesses to Black's relationship with Epstein, Plaintiff is entitled to ask about the documents, provided to Decorate at their depositions, and to seek and examine anything if relevant. Communications between Carp and Epstein would not be subject to attorney-client privilege, communications between Carp and any agent for Epstein, including lawyers for Epstein, are not privileged. Furthermore, Carp, Erlich and Lawford's communications with Susan Estrich, Daniel Perry, or the Quinn-A-Many Lawyers serving as counsel of record in this action would not be privileged. Their communications with any public relations firms regarding Black are similarly not privileged.

7:38Because Plaintiff brings asserts, a GMVA claim, proof regarding gender-based animus is relevant, and evidence suggesting or attending the bolster the inference of animus towards women by Black, and any patterns of such animus is relevant. Carp is known Black for decades, and has served on foundations, nonprofits, and other private groups alongside Black. To the extent Carp is personal knowledge regarding Black's treatment of women or any specific instances that would be relevant to suggest or infer gender-based animus or a pattern engaged in by Black with other women, such knowledge is not protected under attorney-client privilege. Similarly, Erlich and Lawford have worked with and alongside Black for a number of years. Numerous publications show Carp in Black and Social situations together, including with spouses, and conversations in any social setting with Black would not be privileged. Ultimately, retainer agreements for legal services are not privileged documents, and therefore, if Carp or other attorneys wish to demonstrate that they are in fact serving as legal counsel in Dover's Black, that they otherwise have an attorney-client relationship concerning any of these topics, they can produce the retainer.

8:50But numerous interactions between these lawyers in Black and agents of Black, as well as Black's family members, show that ample communications have nothing to do with a confidential legal advice that took place. Plaintiff is entitled to conduct the depositions, and if privilege regarding a certain question exists, it can be raised and objected to at the time. Plaintiff's compromised position, defend and seek to quash deposition subpoenas, and he should brief the issues. We do not agree that asking the court to engage in an informal conference to essentially limit scope of discovery at depositions is proper. Plaintiff's proposal is to allow discovery to take place, during which counsel can make appropriate objections on the basis of privilege as it arises. Defendants position. Plaintiff's attempt to subpoena Mr. Black's attorneys and his wife is an attempt to annoy, embarrassed and harass the recipients, and Mr. Black without the slightest chance of obtaining evidence that is relevant to plaintiff's claim or that could not be obtained from other sources.

9:52Instead, the subpoenas demand information and materials that are clearly protected by the attorney-client and spousal privileges, respectively, from individuals who are indisputably not witnesses to any of these. Any of the events at issue in the case. Any non-privileged information these individuals possess is irrelevant to plaintiff's loan claim that she was purportedly raped by defendant in 2022 at Jeffrey Epstein's residence in New York City, and that plaintiff as refused or is unable to provide any legitimate relevance for the requested testimony. The subpoenas should be quashed. The subpoenas not only seek information that is both privileged and irrelevant, plaintiff seeks to issue deposition subpoenas to three of Mr. Black's attorneys at the law firm of Paul Weiss, Brad Carp, Andrew Urlic, and Gregory Lawford. But any knowledge they could conceivably have that is in any way relevant to the claims any defense in this matter would have been obtained exclusively in the course of the representation of Mr. Black, and any communications that they had with Mr. Black or any of his agents or representatives

10:57are by consequence privileged. None of those attorneys are recipient witnesses to any of the events at issue, and they certainly had no connection to the case in 2001 or 2002 when those supposed events occurred. Neither Mr. Urlic nor Mr. Lawford had yet even begun the practice of law, and Mr. Carp did not even meet Mr. Black until 2008. Nor does the Decart Report provide a basis to depose Mr. Black's counsel. The information these three lawyers may have had is a result of representing Mr. Black in that investigation and thus privileged, and plaintiff is flat wrong that communications between Mr. Black's lawyers and other matters and counsel of record in this case would not be privileged. Indeed, any information, these lawyers could possibly provide in response to the subpoenas is necessarily privileged or at a minimum could be obtained through other more direct sources. Perhaps even more remarkably, the plaintiff seeks to serve a deposition, subpoena on Mr. Black's wife, and a transparent and offensive attempt to harass embarrassed burden and annoy Mr. and Mrs. Black.

12:02Mrs. Black is also not a precipitant witness, and plaintiff is refused to provide any reason beyond rank speculation as the wire testimony would have any relevance. Any knowledge she might have was obtained through her confidential communications with Mr. Black, she has no independent knowledge of any potentially relevant information and is not mentioned in plaintiffs' complaint. Accordingly, any information she could provide in response to the subpoena is protected by the Marital Communications Privilege, is irrelevant or could be obtained through other more direct sources. For all of these reasons, defendant's initial position is that the court should quash the subpoenas in their entirety or enter a protective order pursuant to Rule 26C1, precluding the depositions of Brad Carp, Andrew Erlich, Gregory Lawford, and Deborah Black. Defendants' compromised position. Pursuant to your honours, individual rule 4K, during the meeting confer, the defendant's counsel repeatedly asked plaintiff, counsel to explain what relevant, non-privilege information any of these witnesses could provide.

13:09In response, plaintiffs' counsel refused to provide any meaningful response other than to speculate that Mr. Black and Ms. Black, one of the attorney's subject to the proposed subpoenas, may have communicated with Mr. Black and Jeffrey Epstein, many years ago. But even if this were true, plaintiffs professed explanation in no way support for sweeping and intrusive subpoenas, non-dimension the fact that any such communications would still have no material bearing on the allegations in this case. Counsel for defendant also raised the possibility of the parties agreeing to a protective order that expressly prohibited plaintiff from seeking information from the deponents related to specific irrelevant and or privileged topics. But again, plaintiffs' counsel refused to explain how any topic or document request was relevant or not subject to privilege. Without this information, it is impossible to craft language that would adequately protect the deponents than Mr. Black. In short, while we tried to have a substantive, good faith discussion and an attempt to reach some resolution, counsel's highly unusual position, coupled with their failure to meaningfully engage in the meeting confer process, leaves us with no choice but to make this application.

14:22The party sank the court for its attention to this matter, respectfully signed by Daniel Perry, and this was submitted on November 26, 2024. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.