August 09, 2022 11:23 AN¶
ST-2020-CV-00155¶
TAMARA CHARLES¶
CLERK OF THE COURT SUPERIOR COURT RGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF STUN / ST. JOHN¶
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,¶
Plaintiff,¶
v.¶
ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company,¶
Defendants.¶
CASE NO. ST-2020-CV-00155¶
Complex Litigation Division¶
Action for Indemnification¶
ORDER¶
THIS MATTER is before the undersigned further to the Joint Notice filed by Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the proposed Intervenor Government of the United States Virgin Islands. Defendants request oral argument on their motion to dismiss, which Plaintiff does not oppose. Plaintiff and Defendants request oral argument on the Government’s motion to intervene. Defendants also indicate that they would like to file a response to the Government’s motion to intervene, which the Government opposes.¶
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2021-0012, the Staff has broad authority—in cases and individual cases under cases—to “[r]egulate all proceedings by … addressing pretrial and posttrial matters . .” (Admin. Order No. 2021-0012, p.3.) This case is not a under a case, however, and thus, the Staff authority is not as broad. But in all complex cases, the Staff has authority to “[m]ake or recommend findings of facts and conclusions of law on dispositive motions,” to “[m]ake formal and informal recommendations and reports to the judge regarding any matter pertinent to the proceedings[,]” and to “[c]onduct legal analysis of parties’ motions or other submissions and make recommended findings of facts and conclusions of law … .” Id. The Staff also has authority to “[e]stablish,¶
manage and supervise discovery plans and other related schedules … .” Id. at 2. Consequently, while the undersigned may not be able to decide whether to grant the Defendants leave to respond to the motion to intervene out of time, the undersigned can establish a schedule by when such motion should be filed. Accordingly, it is hereby¶
ORDERED that the following deadlines shall govern further briefing on the motion to intervene: if Defendants intend to request leave to respond to the motion to intervene, they must serve and file a motion on or before Friday, August 19, 2022; Plaintiff and the Government of the United States Virgin Islands may serve and file a Response on or before Friday, August 26, 2022; and Defendants may serve and file a Reply on or before Friday, September 2, 2022. In order to reduce further delay, and assuming a motion for leave to respond out of time is filed, it is further¶
ORDERED that any responses and replies to the motion to intervene should be served and filed by the same deadlines given above, but as a stand-alone document, and not as an attachment to another filing. Counsel are advised that this briefing schedule is intended to reduce delay and does not mean that further briefing on the motion to intervene will be considered by the undersigned or the Judge. Should the Judge decide to grant the motion for leave to file out of time, (if such motion is filed), the briefing will already be on file. Should the Judge decide to deny the motion, the additional briefing can be stricken. It is further¶
ORDERED that this matter is scheduled for a remote Hearing and Oral Argument on Friday, September 16, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. on (1) the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants on May 1, 2020; and (2) the motion to intervene filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands on July 13, 2020. The undersigned will also hear argument on (3) the motion for leave to file a response to the motion to intervene out of time, assuming such motion is filed.¶
DONE and SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2022.¶
ATTEST: JOSEPH T. GASPER¶
TAMARA CHARLES Staff Clerk of he Court i_¶
By: 0 A Gan. C’ .4010)A-CourjClyik .,,,, Date: )e’. V , op:W..4-774-9¶